In our interconnected world, social media plays a vital role in communication, knowledge-sharing, and community-building. However, this digital landscape has witnessed a troubling surge in online hate speech, posing a threat not only to the victims, but also to social cohesion, social well-being, and, ultimately, democracy. 

Hate speech can be understood as any oral or written expression that aims to defame, insult, dehumanise, or incite violence against individuals simply because of their membership in a disfavoured social group. Importantly, it is a manifestation of an ideology of hate that holds a set of beliefs and attitudes that promotes and justifies discrimination, prejudice, and hostility against certain groups of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic perceived as different. 

This article proposes that online hate speech can be addressed by reducing witnesses’ silence (the bystander effect). Nevertheless, not all responses are effective in combating hate content: Witnesses may confront the offender or support the victim, through public comments and private messages. These actions, while common, may be ambiguous, inappropriate, or even illegal, may lead to the escalation of conflict, and definitely do not contribute to reducing online hate speech. In contrast, using institutional mechanisms to report behaviour makes it possible to better map the scope of hate speech, measuring the number of incidents more accurately, and making it possible to characterise manifestations of hate speech. Such a diagnosis is fundamental for planning and implementing measures aimed at decreasing hate speech in social media. 

This study tested the efficacy of two key psychological factors in countering the natural tendency for bystander apathy regarding online hate speech: perspective-taking (that is, putting oneself in the shoes of hate victims) and prescriptive norms (that is, social rules indicating what action is appropriate in the face of immoral conduct from others). Previous research suggests that the joint effect of perspective-taking processes and the salience of institutional prescriptive norms can stimulate, on one hand, empathy towards the victims of hate, and, on the other, psychological moral self-regulation regarding discriminatory misbehaviour, encouraging individuals to report witnessed online hate speech. 

In the study, 226 participants in Portugal believed that they were participating in an academic tournament: the European University Olympics. They were randomly allocated to one of four group conditions: 51 participants did not receive any stimulus or information (control group); 56 were only exposed to the perspective-taking stimulus; 62 were only exposed to institutional norms about hate speech; and 57 were exposed to both the perspective-taking stimulus and a set of institutional prescriptive norms. In all groups, a supposed group member posted messages using Brazilian Portuguese words and expressions, thus creating the impression that the member was an immigrant from Brazil. As part of the experiment, this member received a hate speech message within the chat.

Perspective-taking involves the ability to see a given situation from another’s point-of-view. Thus, it is expected to enhance feelings of empathy, sympathy, and care toward victims of hate speech, as well as to foster more favourable attitudes, while simultaneously reducing bias, prejudice, and discriminatory behaviour. Inducing empathy not only improves individuals’ positive attitudes toward an entire victimised group (e.g., immigrants), but is also effective in countering bystander apathy by encouraging prosocial behaviours towards them, which can be applied in cases where individuals witness hate crimes, prompting helping behaviour such as comforting the victim or reporting misbehaviour. 

To encourage perspective-taking, half of participants were asked to imagine life on an alien planet named Dorothy, where they encountered situational constraints (e.g., discrimination and hate speech) similar to those experienced by immigrants, presented as an independent initial task, unrelated to the tournament. The perspective-taking stimulus emerged as an effective strategy for promoting report behaviour. Indeed, it was observed that a larger share of participants exposed to this stimulus used the report button (53%), compared to participants who were not exposed (41%). 

Prescriptive norms serve as social guidelines of appropriate behaviour that respects core values cherished by a specific group or society (such as human rights and social justice). Adhering to anti-discrimination norms, which encourage intolerance for discriminatory behaviour and the adoption of particular normative procedures that reflect such intolerance is crucial for motivating individuals to act against hateful behaviours. Thus, the salience of institutional prescriptive norms that proclaim zero tolerance for hate speech and that define how to proceed after witnessing such misbehaviour stimulate moral self-regulation oriented to conform to the predicted normative behaviour. In this study, in the context of the fictitious European University Olympics, the highlighted institutional prescriptive norm emphasised the university’s stance against discrimination and hate speech, making it clear that any such incidents were not tolerated and should be reported. The participants assigned to the prescriptive norms conditions received this information when the instructions for the Olympics were given, while participants in the perspective-taking-only condition and the control group did not receive this information. Participants exposed to the institutional prescriptive norms used the report button in a greater proportion (58%), compared to participants who were not exposed to this information (41%). 

The joint presence of perspective-taking and institutional prescriptive norms resulted in the strongest reporting of hate speech against a team member who was identifiable as an immigrant (68%), statistically different from the control group. Importantly, this combination of perspective-taking and prescriptive norms countered a baseline majority tendency of adopting bystander apathy (59% participants in the control group) and significantly engaged individuals in adopting normative action (68% of participants reported the misbehaviour). Interestingly, results also show that participants in this combining situation (perspective-taking and institutional prescriptive norms) were those that least engaged in alternative responses such as writing in the chat to confront the offender (which tends to lead to escalation rather than a resolution). Together, these results show that the stimulation of empathy and of moral self-regulation towards intolerance for discriminatory behaviour seem to work together in decreasing bystander apathy in the face of hate speech and in adopting prosocial behaviour.

The results highlight the pivotal roles played by perspective-taking stimuli and the potential of institutional prescriptive norms in promoting reporting behaviour, particularly when employed together. These two factors stimulate distinct yet complementary psychological mechanisms that counter the bystander effect in the context of online hate speech. Although the study focused on a hate speech message directed to immigrants, the results can likely be transferred to other vulnerable social groups. It is crucial to consider both factors when developing communication campaigns, intervention programmes, and strategies to combat hate speech. This approach is essential for cultivating a sense of internal social responsibility and empowerment among witnesses, encouraging them to report instances of online hate speech and promoting responsible usage of social media platforms. Emphasising zero tolerance for hate contributes to a social network environment that prioritises respect for human rights, human dignity, social justice, and the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. 

META AI (May 12, 2020). AI advances to better detect hate speech.

Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2020). Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime.

Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective‐taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 374–387.

Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656–1666.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human Behaviour. In Advances in Experimental Social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). Academic Press.